Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Kazakhstan at rank 1
Author: bert.kassies Date: 12-07-2005, 22:06	Kazakhstan takes the lead, see UEFA Country Coefficients 2005/2006

Re: Kazakhstan at rank 1
Author: Malko Date: 12-07-2005, 22:21	Okay, is there somewhere a "bet and win" to bet they won't be there at the end of the season ? :-)+ANY-

Re: Kazakhstan at rank 1
Author: christi Date: 13-07-2005, 11:13	I'll give you a 1.0001 odd for that

Re: Kazakhstan at rank 1
Author: ignjat63 Date: 13-07-2005, 11:24	Weeeel, with Kazakhstan topping the charts what chances does Serbia have? I get more and more pessimistic by the day! (very deeep sigh indeed)

Re: Kazakhstan at rank 1
Author: porto-1978 Date: 13-07-2005, 11:36	Why the cup winner FK Taraz and 2nd in the league Irtysh Pavlodar have been excluded from UC? It beneficts the country in terms of ranking position. With just one game played Kazakhstan have already this season more coefficient than the total of all the other years! As much as Wales right now...

Re: Kazakhstan at rank 1
Author: AdamL Date: 13-07-2005, 13:48	But Walsh teams has 3 matches to play till Thursday including 2 in easy northern group of UEFA Cup. Anyway I would never change a place in a Cup in favour of benefits in rank. As I remember Taraz and Pavlodar were excluded because of licence problems.

Re: Kazakhstan at rank 1
Author: isidromv Date: 13-07-2005, 14:49	I think it is not a benefit. It is easier to win points in UC than in CL, so excluding the UC teams is an a priori disadventage for the country. Of course, this is football and not all a priori conclusions become true.

Author: thomas
Date: 13-07-2005, 17:26
Edited by: thomas
at: 13-07-2005, 17:27

It is no benefit for the ranking to have just one team. It is more risky. The country can earn points very quickly, but it can drop out with zero points very quickly as well.

Perhaps someone could make a list of points that countries with only one team had earned. I remember that some post-soviet countries had only one team in their first EC-participation. Then there are Andorra, San Marino (allways zero points) and Liechtenstein. Also Wales used to have only one team for a long time.

Author: corker
Date: 15-07-2005, 13:26

There is a simple answer to this and that is that becuase Kazakhstan only have one team the matches their one representative plays become three times more important i.e. a win catapults them to a (reltaively) high standing whilst a loss could have left them trailing behind.

A quick look at the co-efficients shows that only two other countries from the qualifiers have 1 point - Liechtenstein (who have only one representative) and Ireland (who have three representatives)
On the otherhand 5 teams have 0 points - Malta, Luxembourg and Armenia (who each have three representatives) and San Marino and Andorra (each with one representative).

Evidently a country with three representatives will struggle to achieve 1 point whilst 0 points can easily be picked up...especially if the country ends up being unseeded.

Kazakhstan were ranked as an unseeded country and whilst their win was impressive I doubt they would have 1 point if all three teams were entered (although nothing is impossible!).

Perhaps more importantly it should be noted that the other two Kazakshtan teams were excluded because they did not get a licence...something which clubs from Andorra,Luxembourg etc have managed to achieve.

Should a country gain a reward when really they should be punished?

Author: porto-1978
Date: 15-07-2005, 15:46

If their only representative do well it may have positive results. But baning 2 clubs is never a reward for the country. It may have positive interference on the coefficient (or not) but just for one year. In long term is important to have some clubs with good experience to face european clubs and gain points. If a country have 3 places in UEFA then is important to have at least the same number of experient teams. That only happen if they play. So to let Kazakhstan with just one club is a punishment, i think.

The same for countries that make good coefficients and so, by the rules, gain more entrances in european football. That?s a reward, and to lose representants is always a punishment for not so good results. Even if the coefficients change in the inverse way...

Author: higgins147
Date: 15-07-2005, 19:32
Edited by: higgins147
at: 15-07-2005, 19:34

I think its a little unfair that teams can rise so quickly by having only 1 team involved. But I take the point that if they are to rise quickly they will get 'found out' when they reach the Round 2 stage. So it probably evens itself out that way.

I suppose its the same with Irish teams. The aim is to get into the QR2 with a bye but you also face the fact you wont get many points unless you can do your talking on the pitch in QR2.

I assume most team have a yoyo effect from Round 1 to Round 2? As they are strong enough to pick up points in Round 1 and get a bye but not strong enough to sustain the bye when they get it and thereby fall down the points again?? Is this that case.

Its really unfair on the 3 or 4 sides who get a bye into CL QR2 but are still unseeds isnt it?

Is it set in the rules how far up the country ranking you need to be to get a bye into CL QR2? Was it position 27 this season?

Author: Ras1112
Date: 16-07-2005, 00:20

Hi guys!
My understanding is it's good for newcomers make some points in Q1/Q2 rounds, especially if it's only one club like Kazakhstan for example, maybe that'll help for future years seeding.
But if federation hurts itself like Azerbaijan & didn't even give clubs chance to gain some points for two years due to suspension, you are going to be at 50 place near by Andorra or San Marino. I've nothing to against those countries but from historic point it's not big surprise, although in case with Liechtenstein, one team representation just working and we have to agree these guys just started play better for the last years.
One thing I’m not very comfortable is a division in qualifying rounds of UC by regions isn’t seems fair in sense of level of competition.